Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Free, no auth' and clarifying what the tool returns in full. This goes beyond the structured annotations and covers the main behavioral surface for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus an example, with the usage context front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information, and the example is compact without redundant elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, input alternatives, auth requirements, and an example. There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the return content, and annotations cover safety and idempotency.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the key relationship: pass either the URL or kind+slug. It also provides a concrete example and clarifies that these are alternative input modes, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'read one record in full' and lists the content fields (title, dates, source URLs, topics, body text). It also distinguishes when this tool is relevant by naming its sibling predecessors (search_archive, whats_new, what_changed), making it easy to choose over alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit placement guidance: 'Use after search_archive, whats_new or what_changed' and explains the two input modes (URL or kind+slug), plus an example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name a full-record alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.